Peji v. CDCR, et al.

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/13/2015 DENYING defendants' 40 motion to dismiss ; defendants' reply to plaintiff's opposition is due within 7 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EUGENIO PEJI,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-2647 KJM KJN P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

CDCR, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ May 11, 2015 request for dismissal

19

or, in the alternative, request for an extension of time to file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition. (ECF

20

No. 40.) The background to this request is as follows.

21

On April, 3, 2015, the undersigned ordered plaintiff to file his opposition to defendants’

22

summary judgment motion within thirty days. (ECF No. 38.) Pursuant to the mailbox rule,

23

plaintiff filed his opposition on April 29, 2015. (ECF No. 39 at 46.) The court stamp file on

24

plaintiff’s opposition is May 5, 2015. (Id. at 1.)

25

In the pending motion, defendants contend that plaintiff’s opposition, filed May 5, 2015,

26

is one day late. Defendants request that this action be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to file

27

a timely opposition. Assuming the court deems plaintiff’s opposition timely, defendants request

28

an extension of time to file a reply.
1

1
2

Plaintiff’s opposition is timely as it was filed, pursuant to the mailbox rule, within thirty
days of April 3, 2015.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBYORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No.

4

40) is denied; defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s opposition is due within seven days of the date of

5

this order.

6

Dated: May 13, 2015

7
8
9
Pej2647.opp
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2